In a message dated 4/24/01 7:13:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< you keep missing the point of the
 "why" of demolition. Congress passed a law mandating it. It's that simple.
 It's just the same as mandatory base closures. That fight's over. Those of
 us engaged in the protection and preservation of installation National
 Register Historic Districts (and I am one) must go on from there >>

No John, I did not miss the point. I suppose I am not speaking as a
consultant here but as a "citizen tourist" who does not see all temporary
buildings in the same context. You speak of historic districts half way
across the nation as something that should "satisfy me" and I can see you do
not understand my point. I feel a 16-year old policy is subject to
reconsideration. The older those buildings become, the more base closures we
experience, the more demolition that occurrs, the more we need to reconsider
old policies.

When you examine a wood frame building, you do not say we have enough redwood
posts preserved in Florida or Texas and thus we can demolish a building in
California. The temporary buildings and structures contribute (just like wood
fram parts contribute to a total building) to historic settings, landscapes,
and historical interpretation. The issue is not one building or even a group
of buildings. The issue is how they enable us to understand the role of
military bases in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. And, I am a
believer that people in different parts of the nation deserve to have samples
within reasonable driving distance.

I would say that 90% of the temporary buildings constructed by the U.S. Army
here in California will be demolished in our lifetime. Indeed, probably 75%
of what was built is gone now. But, as we are allowed to conduct historical
research on those old bases we learn the temporary buildings and structures
played continuous historical contributions to World events of significance.
For example, treaties were signed in temporary buildings at the San Francisco
Presidio. Another example would be the fantastic laser and sound experiments
performed in Series 700 buildings at U.S. Army Fort Rosecrans during the Cold
War. To demolish those temporaries when so much is being demolished without a
sober reconsideration of regulations would be a travesty.

All rules should be reconsidered every ten years. I believe Congress would
agree to that concept. Sure, no one wants to save all the temporary buildings
in the nation. No one wants to preserve temporary buildings where nothing
important happened. But, maybe Congress "threw the baby out with the
bathwater" when they directed total demolition. I am just stating my opinion
that I do not want to have to drive across another state to see my American
history.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.